The South Korean Democratization Process:
The Applicability of S.M. Lipset's Work to South Korea
Bruno V.J. Diepraam
Bachelor Thesis Universiteit Leiden
s1692828
Thesis supervisor: Dr. F. de Zwart
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...…...p.3 Introduction...…...p.4 Research Design and Methods...…...p.5
1. Lipset: The influence of the economy...p.9 2. The South Korean developmental state...p.12
2.1. A working definition of democracy...p.12 2.2. Electoral and individual freedom in the South Korean
developmental state...p.13 3. South Korean economic growth between 1961 and 1987...p.15 3.1.GDP...p.18 3.2.Other factors influencing economic development...p.19 4. Democracy in South Korea after 1987...p.22 4.1.Electoral and individual freedom in post-transition South Korea...p.22 5. Democratization in South Korea: the strength of Lipset’s explanation...p.24
5.1. Civil Society in South Korea...p.24 5.2. Class in South Korea...p.29 6. Conclusions and discussion...p.32 Bibliography...p.35
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank, first and foremost, my thesis supervisor dr. De Zwart, for his patient
advice. Furthermore, I would like to thank my thesis group for sharing insights into their
Introduction
The academic literature on the subject of democratization and its relationship to economic
development is strongly divided. On the one hand, there are scientists who state that the regime
type in a country determines the level of economic development of said country. For example,
Acemoglu and Robinson (2012) argue that pluralistic political institutions foster sustainable
economic development, whereas political institutions in which power lies with a small,
privileged group, will cause economic stagnation. On the other hand, there are scholars who
pose the alternative view that the economic situation in a country determines the domestic
political system. Prominent amongst them is Lipset (1959), who helped introduce the notion
that economic development causes democratization.
The political system of South Korea is a remarkable example of a fast and successful
democratization process. Looking back at the post-war situation one can see that the 1948
elections in South Korea were very disorderly (Jun, 1992). These elections set the tone for the
next few decades, as, under the Korean Democratic Party led by Rhee Syngman, the period
between 1948 and 1960 was a tumultuous and politically instable time for the country. The Rhee regime "narrowly survived the [Korean] war (…) with the help of the United States" (Jun,
1992, p.199). It was toppled in April 1960 during the Student Revolution and replaced by a
more liberal government. The protesters did not achieve their long-term goals however, as the
liberal administration was ousted in a military coup only nine months later (Amsden, 1989,
p.30). Afterwards, general Park Chung Hee ruled the country until he was assassinated in 1979,
extending the term limits of his presidency several times (Heo & Roehrig, 2012, p.22-23).
South Korea under Park Chung Hee is often described as a ‘developmental state’ (Jun,
1992; Evans, 1995), a state where the political goals and institutional structures are
to economically develop by harnessing the internal market to serve the national economic
interest (White and Wade 1988, p.1). The model of the developmental state is often typified by
its strong bureaucratic apparatus and nationalistic governing elites that suppress opposition of
civil society (Jun, p.186; Leftwich p.160-164).
Starting from the nineteen-eighties, South Korea transformed from a state where the
economy was controlled by the state and competition for power was limited, into a much more
democratic country with an open economy. Pirie (2016) argues that South Korea today can no
longer be described as a developmental state. In his earlier work (2008) he describes the South
Korean economy as thoroughly neoliberal. Furthermore, in their Freedom in the World 2017
report, Freedom House awards South Korea a score of 82, with 1 being least free and
democratic and 100 being most free and democratic.
In this thesis, I will research the theory put out by Lipset, in which economic
development causes democratization, in the South Korean context. At first glance, Acemoglu
and Robinson's view of the relationship between the political character of a regime and
economic development seems to run contrary to that of Lipset. The relationship between the two theories will be investigated and Acemoglu and Robinson’s theory will be challenged on
several points. However, I will also attempt to unify Lipset's work with that of Acemoglu and
Robinson.
Research Design and Method
Flick (2007, p.62) argues that when it comes to qualitative research, the quality of the research
is mostly based on explicit and motivated decisions for using a specific research design and
specific methods. Thus, I aim to expand on my choices regarding the design and methods of
As mentioned above, this thesis is concerned with the democratization process that took
place in South Korea, leading up to the first democratic elections in 1987. The goal is not to
develop a full causal explanation of this process. Instead, the central aim of this thesis is to see
if Lipset's theory on democratization can explain the shift in South Korea from an authoritarian
to a democratic regime.
The first proposition that was investigated is that when we see economic development
in the way Lipset defines it, we will see democracy emerging. Lipset's definition of “economic
development”, as shown later, includes not just wealth, but also industrialization, urbanization
and education. For this proposition, a comparison was made between South Korea under Park
Chung Hee's regime on the one hand and the country after the first democratic elections in 1987
on the other hand. In addition, this study shows that economic development took place between
Park Chung Hee's coup in 1961 and the elections of 1987. However, this only points at
correlation between economic development and democratization. The question also had to be
assessed whether the causal mechanisms that powered this democratization match the ones
Lipset identifies, namely the strengthening of the lower and middle classes and the emergence
of voluntary organizations. These mechanisms will be further operationalized on pages 26-34.
Throughout the study, political institutions and economic performance were assessed
in different periods, with a focus on broad trends and important events. One might call the
approach that was followed historical institutionalism. As Mahony and Rueschemeyer state,
processes such as democratization are most appropriately viewed within the context of
temporal sequences and "the unfolding of events over time" (2003, pp. 6-7), which, according
to Sanders (2008, p.1) is one of the strengths of the historical institutionalist approach. The way
the research was carried out also bears resemblance to a longitudinal design, seeing as the
Several strategies were employed to ensure the validity and reliability of this study. To
begin with, Morse et al. (2002, p.18) argue for “methodological coherence”, so that the method
of analysis used matches the data. Looking at the South Korean case in this thesis, qualitative
literature and document study is the method that is employed most often. Literature study is a
relatively in-depth tool, suited to the level of exhaustive detailing case studies and comparative
studies usually show. This allows the researcher to focus on aspects that cannot easily be
quantified (Flick, 2007, p.3). For this thesis, the advantage of academic literature being a type
of data that is readily available was important, as well as the fact that quality literature analysis
can be done in a relatively short time span.
Furthermore, an appropriate case should be selected. South Korea was selected because
it seemed to fit Lipset's theory well. As mentioned before, South Korea transitioned from a
so-called “developmental state” to a democracy with a freer, neoliberal economy, being perhaps
one of few countries to do so successfully1. Moreover, the model of the developmental state is
often thought to bring rapid economic development. In short, the case was likely to show strong
economic development taking place prior to a successful democratic transition. This makes
South Korea an excellent case with which to research the relationship between economic
development and democratization.
Would this thesis have covered many cases, the relationship between economic
development and democratization could have been analyzed using large-N, statistical methods.
This could have offered the advantage of broader generalizability, whereas in qualitative
research there is usually less room for generalization to a large group of cases (Flick, 2007,
p.42). However, Yin (1994, pp.30-32) states that empirical results from a case study can help
advance a previously developed theory (in this case Lipset’s), which is what he calls “analytical
1 Adrian Leftwich (2000) for instance discusses Botswana, a country that he states had a developmental regime,
generalization”. In this aspect, this research is more robust, seeing as Lipset’s theory covers a
very universal relationship.
Alongside generalizability, or external validity, Yin mentions two other types of validity that one encounters in qualitative research. Firstly, “construct validity” is concerned
with establishing correct operationalizations (Yin, 1994, p.32). Lipset offers some
operationalizations of his definition of “economic development” that were easily adaptable for
this study. Nevertheless, the causal mechanisms that were mentioned before are identified more
vaguely by Lipset. To operationalize for example Lipset’s “voluntary organizations”, I
consulted authoritative literature on these organizations, and Toqueville, to whom Lipset refers
himself.
Secondly, internal validity (Yin, 1994, pp.32-33) revolves around making correct
causal inferences. In this study, the causal mechanisms that Lipset identifies were inspected to
infer causality. Moreover, an important alternative explanation, that of Acemoglu and
Robinson, is refuted in several points.
Lastly, there is reliability, defined by Yin (p.37) as minimizing error and bias so that a
later investigator can arrive at the same findings. To achieve this, Baxter and Jack (2008, p.556)
advise researchers to effectively organize their data. For this study, this was not a difficult task,
since only a few types of data were used. They also suggest providing clear propositions, which
1 Lipset: The influence of the economy
Before looking at South Korea, it is useful to study Lipset’s work in more detail and address
several common misperceptions. Firstly, there is the misunderstanding of the conceptual scope
of the term "economic development". Secondly, there are some refutations of Lipset's theory
that have themselves been refuted.
An oft-quoted line from Lipset's work is the following: “the more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy” (1959, p.75). According to
Wucherpfenning and Deutsch (2009), many scholars treat this relationship between GDP and
democratization as the core of Lipset's theory. However, Lipset treats "wealth", which he
defined primarily as per capita income (1959, p.76), as just one of the indicators of a broader
concept of "economic development". Besides wealth, the factors of urbanization, education and
industrialization are all indicators of what Lipset sees as the economic development of a society
(p.75). This broad “development” is what causes democratization.
Some of the most important causal mechanisms behind this relationship that Lipset
speaks of are the strengthening of the middle and lower classes and the emergence of voluntary
organizations. The middle class plays a role in reducing the chance that conflicts escalate, since
this class tends to reward moderate political parties (1959, p.83). Lipset does not clearly state
why the middle class would be eager to support moderate politicians. However, scholars such
as Hattori, Funatsu and Torii (2003, p.129), placing Lipset in the tradition of modernization
theory, have interpreted his claim as the middle class being created by economic development,
therefore embracing modern values and spearheading democratization. Other writers within
the modernization school argue that a newly formed middle class, having recently obtained
some economic freedom, will try to protect this newfound affluence by supporting a democratic
The lower classes, through economic development, gain increased income security and
higher education. This, according to Lipset, permits them to "develop longer time perspective
and more complex and gradualist views of politics" (1959, p.83). They are also increasingly
exposed to “cross pressures”, or more and wider social contacts, especially through voluntary
organizations, making them less receptive to extremist ideology (p.83-84).
Voluntary organizations, such as labor unions, are especially important to Lipset. For
his understanding of these organizations, Lipset draws on the work of authors such as Selznick
(1952) and Lederer (1940). As Lipset surmises, these writers both concluded that a “mass society”, without a variety of organizations independent from the state, is vulnerable to
demagogues and revolutions (p.84). According to Lipset, voluntary organisations serve a host
of functions that promote democracy, as they
are a source of countervailing power, inhibiting the state or any single major source of
private power from dominating all political resources, they are a source of new
opinions; they can be the means of communicating ideas, particularly opposition ideas,
to a large section of the citizenry; they serve to train men in the skills of politics; and
they help increase the level of interest and participation in politics. (1959, p.84)
Besides the fact that Lipset's theory has been misunderstood, the validity of his claims
has been disputed. Przeworski and Limongi (1997) and Przeworski, Alvarez, Cheibub and
Limongi (2000) have attempted to refute Lipset's ideas on the basis of statistical analyses
relating GDP to regime type. They argue that a higher GDP merely increases the chance that a
democracy survives once it has been established, but that higher levels of income do not lead
to democratization.
However, Epstein et al. (2006) show that Przeworksi and his colleagues made statistical
in their Markov model” (p.566), leading them to believe the effect of GDP on democratization
was insignificant. After running their own statistical analyses of the same data, the results that
Epstein and his colleagues found ran "counter to PACL's [Prezworski, Alvarez, Cheibub and
Limongi's] central hypothesis" (p.553). Thus, they showed that a higher GDP does in fact lead
to democratization.
Moreover, there are scientists who believe that the relationship between democracy and
economic development is of an altogether different nature. Acemoglu and Robinson (2012)
argue that the character of political institutions determines that of economic institutions. They
state that in extractive political institutions, a ruling political elite produces economic
institutions that serve its own narrow economic interests (2012, p.81). I will discuss in a later
section how, according to Acemoglu and Robinson, institutional drift and critical junctures
help turn extractive political institutions into inclusive political institutions. Acemoglu and
Robinson argue that these inclusive political institutions are typified by a pluralistic division
of power, so that no societal group is excluded (p.80). This political inclusivity makes it nearly
impossible for any group to grant itself economic privileges (p.102). This gives rise to inclusive
economic institutions, where property rights are protected and economic actors enjoy a level
playing field (p.74-75). According to Acemoglu and Robinson, these inclusive economic
institutions vastly outperform extractive ones in the long term.
At the core, Acemoglu and Robinson’s theory describes the relationship between
democracy and economic development as moving in the opposite direction as that of Lipset:
where Lipset believes that economic development causes democratization, Acemoglu and
Robinson argue that democratization causes economic development.
2 The South Korean Developmental State
Before one can discover if economic development has had any influence on the
democratization of the South Korea, an assessment must first be made of the South Korean
developmental state under Park Chung Hee. In doing so, one avoids the risk of attributing
democratic elements of the post-democratic transition South Korean political system to
economic development, when in fact they were already present in the pre-transition
developmental state.
Given a lack of time, the analysis of Park Chung Hee's regime that is presented in this
section will be a broad one. It will not account for subtle differences between the years of Park's
reign and it will be limited to the major governmental institutions such as the executive and
parliament and their relation to society.
2.1 A working definition of democracy
At the core of democracy is the principle that power lies with the people, or as Easton (1956)
calls it, the principle of “upward control”. According to Dahl (1971, p.2), every basic
democracy requires at least the possibility of formulating one's own political opinion,
expressing and sharing this opinion, and having governing bodies respect these opinions. As
Diamond and Morlino (2004, p.21) state, a political system where this electoral freedom is
respected calls for various alternative sources of information, universal suffrage, and free,
competitive and fair elections in which more than one political party competes.
In a seminal article, Zakaria (1997) calls those regimes that were elected
democratically, but then proceed to deprive citizens of individual freedoms 'illiberal
democracies.' Diamond and Morlino state that a “quality” democracy provides more than just
includes the following dimensions: the rule of law, participation, competition, accountability
of the executive towards other institutions of the state and the people, civil freedoms and
political equality of all citizens and responsiveness of the state to the wishes of its citizens
(p.22).
2.2 Electoral and individual freedom in the South Korean developmental state
Jun writes that the developmental state in South Korea could not have developed without the
legacy of Japanese colonialism and US stewardship. He calls the Japanese rule of South Korea
'totalitarian', mainly because of the rapid, large-scale development of repressive state bodies,
that pervaded in many aspects of life (1992, p.187). Then, when the US army arrived in the
country, they were met with left-wing revolutionists (p.190). In response, US forces restored
and even augmented the oppressive government apparatuses of the Japanese (Jun, 1991,
p.181-198). Thus, the Japanese and Americans laid the groundwork for a state that did not allow much
interference in politics and had little respect for individual rights.
Immediately after Park Chung Hee staged a military coup and took control of the
country in 1961, he ruled through the 'Supreme Council for National Reconciliation'. Heo and
Roehrig call it a "military junta", that Park used to run the country after he had "dissolved the
National assembly, declared martial law and arrested or purged thousands in the military and
in government" and “banned countless politicians from participating in politics and imposed
strict censorship on the press (2010, p.22).
It seems obvious that in this early phase of the regime, democracy was nowhere to be
found. Not only was Park ruling through a government body that citizens had no influence on,
possibility for upward control even further. This style of governing also disrespected many
individual liberal rights such as free speech.
As mentioned before, the US pressured Park into allowing presidential elections in
1963. Park ran in these elections and won, partly because of his manipulation of the election
date. Writing in the same edited work, Domínguez (2011) and Hutchcock (2011) seem to
disagree about the level of cooperation between Park and the legislature in the time between
after Park won the elections and 1979, when he was killed.
Domínguez states that after seizing power, most successful authoritarian regimes
choose to rule through the legislature and existing political parties, coopting them (2011,
p.574). The Park regime, according to Domínguez, was an example of a successful
authoritarian regime, as it employed the legislature by endorsing a political party, preferring to
"co-opt rather than to repress" (p.600).
Hutchcroft draws a comparison between Park and Marcos, the authoritarian ruler of the
Philippines at the time when Park ruled South Korea. He states that “the two authoritarian
regimes were based on a high concentration of personal authority and power, with a relatively
weak role for the ruling political party in each country” (2011, p.542).
Hutchcroft’s vision of Park’s rule is personalistic, leaving the legislature on the
sidelines. I support it over that of Domínguez, for several reasons. Firstly, Park mainly ruled
through two non-legislative government agencies: the Korean Central Intelligence Agency
(KCIA) and the Economic Planning Bureau (EPB) (Kim Byung-Kook, 2011, p.142). This
meant that the South Korean people had little influence on the decision-making process.
Secondly, the KCIA was not only a tool for governing, but it also enabled widespread
repression of individual liberties. The agency censored and arrested supporters of Park's
was entirely eradicated. For example, when Park amended the constitution, allowing him to
run for an additional third term as president, the political opposition rallied around the National
Democratic Party of Kim Dae-Jung (Chung, 2014, p.1139).
However, the oppressive nature of Park's regime worsened in 1972 through Park’s
Yushin (revitalizing) reforms. These exacerbated the authoritarian and personalistic elements of the president’s rule. Not only did Park change the constitution to rule without any legislative
or judicial checks on his power (Im, 2011, p.233), he also gained the power to “appoint and
dismiss cabinet members and the prime minister, suspend civil liberties” and “rule by
emergency decree” (Heo & Roehrig, 2010, p.23). Moreover, Park effectively made himself
president for life, replacing presidential elections by an electoral college that he controlled (Im,
2011 p.233).
Eugene Kim (1978) states that after Park made these constitutional changes, the South
Korean government gained the character of an “emergency regime”, a political system where
the executive branch widely abuses emergency powers, sometimes without there being an
actual emergency. A poignant example is the kidnapping of opposition leader Kim Dae-Jung
by the KCIA in 1973. State oppression had become so intense, that "despite widespread outrage
over the event, both the South Korean press and public remained silent" (Chung, 2014, p.1141).
3 South Korean economic development between 1961 and 1987
It has been established that Park's regime knew very little democratic elements. Acemoglu and
Robinson would typify it as an extractive political regime, seeing as power was very much
centered around Park’s personal authority and the small military-political elite that surrounded
him. However, many scholars agree that Park's radical economic policies did bring rapid
Cumings (1997, p. 312) states that Park found a way to avoid the inefficiencies and
corrupt ties between businessmen and politicians that plagued Latin American economies who
had, at the time, adopted strategies of import substitution. At first, he publicly condemned the
nations wealthy business leaders, who had employed - and profited from - import substitution
strategies under Rhee Syngman. However, soon after he began listening to the advice of the
businessmen and let them "seek foreign capital to get the economy moving" (Cumings, p.312).
Thus, Park struck a deal with them: he refrained from arresting the business leaders, on the
conditions they would give shares to the government and follow the economic policies the
government set out. During Park's reign, the Economic Planning Board mainly steered the
economy through the chaebols or large business conglomerates. As Woo (1991, p.175)
mentions, these business groups closely followed the EPB's directions, in exchange for the
privileged positions they gained. In combination with the large bureaucratic apparatus of the
EPB and KCIA and the oppressive nature of the Park’s regime this shows that it resembled the
model of the developmental state put out by White and Wade (1988), Evans (1995) and
Leftwich (2000) quite closely.
It is worth noting that Acemoglu and Robinson do account for the possibility of
economic growth under extractive regimes. As mentioned before, inclusive political
institutions enforce property rights and a level playing field. This allows for innovation, which
according to Acemoglu and Robinson is the key to sustainable economic growth. Extractive
growth however is based on the top-down allocation of resources in a more efficient way, yet
still using existing technologies (2012, pp. 124-126). This type of growth is not sustainable,
since without technological innovation, all inefficiently used resources will eventually have
been reallocated already and growth will falter (p.128).
Growth spurred on by the increased efficiency of labor was certainly an important factor
p.123) even calls it the most important source of growth, accounting for almost a third of South
Korea's GDP growth. Yet, he also adds that "contribution from productivity growth was by no
means negligible. A significant component of which was advances in knowledge" (p.124).
Kim Linsu (1997, p.23) argues that generally, developing countries that are catching up
go through three phases of technology use: using imported foreign technology, creative
diffusion of imported technology, and domestic research and development to improve the
imported technology and make innovative new technology. Kim Linsu (1997, p. 193-194) and
Chau (2001, p.142) believe that South Korea went through all these phases, with the economy
eventually maturing enough to make innovation possible. This seems to run contrary to Acemoglu and Robinson’s argument that only inclusive institutions can lead to economic
innovation.
“Economic development” as defined by Lipset on the other hand did take place in
South Korea between the start of Park’s rule and the first democratic elections in 1987. GDP
(per capita) increased rapidly, and education, industrialization and urbanization, factors that
3.1 GDP
Figure 1. Annual GDP growth rate in South Korea, 1961-1987
Adapted from The World Bank, GDP growth (annual %), Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=1987&locations=KR&sta rt=1961&view=chart
GDP per capita growth was higher than 4 percent every year except for 1962, and 1980 when
political unrest and the second oil crisis contributed to the economic malaise (Heo & Roehrig,
2012, p.28; Chau, 2001, p.118). The average growth rate for the entire period was 9,5
Figure 2. GDP per capita in South Korea in USD (PPP 2011), 1961-1987
Adapted from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). International Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour, 1960-2011. Retrieved from:
https://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.pdf
Adjusted for purchasing power parity in 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) found
that GDP per capita grew from 1579 dollars per person in 1961 to an astonishing 9475 dollars
in 1987.
3.2 Other factors influencing economic development
The timescale of this thesis was too limited to touch on all the indicators Lipset employs to
measure these three variables, but several of the most important ones, on which data was readily
available, have been considered. For industrialization, one of the indicators Lipset uses is the
per capita energy consumption, which increases as a country becomes more industrialized.
When it comes to education, the enrollment rate is an important indicator Lipset considers. And
finally, for urbanization, Lipset takes the percentage of the population living in cities with over
metropolitan areas (Lipset, 1960, p.51-54). As cities have grown, and are growing rapidly, in
number but also in size (United Nations ESA, 2016), what could have amounted to a city in
1960 might be called a village in 1990. Therefore, I have only considered the second variable.
Figure 3. Energy use (kilogram of oil equivalent per capita) in South Korea, 1971-1987. Adapted from The World Bank, Energy Use (kg of oil equivalent per capita), Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.PCAP.KG.OE?locations=KR
Data on South Korea's energy use and enrollment rate was only available starting at 1971,
approximately half way through Park’s reign. South Korea's energy use steadily increased,
Figure 4. Primary School Enrollment Ratio (Net Percentage) in South Korea, 1971-1987. Adapted from The World Bank (n.d.), School Enrollment, Primary (% net). Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.NENR?locations=KR
The same rapid growth did not take place for the primary school enrollment ratio, since it had
always been quite high, starting at 96 percent in 1971. It did however continue to grow to over
99 percent in 1987. Also, Chau (2001, p. 124) states that secondary school enrollment did rise
quite rapidly, from 27 percent in 1960 to 82 percent in 1982.
Lastly, data on the rise of the urban population is less readily available for the period
between 1961 and 1987, but Kang (1998, p.102) reports a rise in the percentage of the
4 Democracy in South Korea after 1987
As mentioned earlier, after Park was assassinated in 1979, power passed briefly to a new
civilian government. Six months later Chun Doo Hwan, another army general who had been a
protégé of Park seized power in a violent coup, ruling the country until 1987 in a manner not
unlike Park had done (Adesnik & Kim, 2008, p.1).
In the previous section, it was shown that the oppressive regimes of Park and Chun lead
to economic development and innovation. In this section, using the working definition of
democracy from the second section, I will show that South Korea’s political system after 1987
was a truly democratic one, especially when it comes to electoral freedom. Whilst the
individual rights situation also improved, it did not advance as quickly.
4.1 Electoral and individual freedom in post-transition South Korea
As stated by Heo & Roehrig (2010, p.36), throughout his term, Park’s successor Chun Doo
Hwan had claimed that he would honour the presidential term limit. In 1986 he had tentatively
begun to negotiate with opposition groups to modify the constitution. Yet, in June 1987, he
announced that he would put forward his confidant Roh Tae Woo as presidential candidate and
that he would not revise the constitution. Massive demonstrations flared up in the country (M.E
Robinson, 2007, p.167). Eventually, instead of cracking down on protests as many had feared, Chun Doo Hwan’s successor Roh Tae Woo had announced the following: he would adopt
whatever new constitution the government and the opposition groups would agree on and adopt
a democratic presidential election system (Heo & Roehrig, 2010 p.37).
The 1987 elections and the 1988 parliamentary elections were the founding democratic
elections in the country according to Kim Sunhyuk (1997, p.1136). In 1987 Roh Tae Woo was
for president separately and had split the vote between them (Heo & Roehrig, 2010, p.41). Still,
in 1992, Kim Young Sam won the presidential elections. This shows that in a short period of
time, the South Korean democracy had matured enough to handle free presidential elections
and a power transition to another administration (Heo & Roehrig, 2010, p.44), led by “a lifelong opponent of authoritarian rule who was nearly put to death by the military” (Diamond & Kim,
2000, p.1).
Whilst electoral freedom seems to have immediately improved after the 1987 elections, the
improvement of individual civil rights seems to have been asymmetrical. The unique situation
of South Korea sharing a border with a possibly hostile nation seems to have contributed to the
curtailing of individual rights. According to Cho, (1997, p.130) South Korea’s National
Security Act of 1948 was enacted to suppress the left-wing movement in the country, due to
the threat of communist North Korea. The law states that “any person who praises, incites or
propagates the activities of an antigovernment organization is punishable” (Korea Legislation
Research Institute, n.d.). This is a very broad statement, potentially targeting those who are
simply critical of the South Korean government. For instance, Cho (p.127) wrote that the law
had been used to imprison leftist South Koreans.
Nonetheless, this lagging development of civil rights is not enough to call the post-transition democracy “illiberal”. In the 1998 Freedom in the World Report published by
Freedom House, Korea was awarded a score of 2 on civil liberties, with 1 being best and 7
being worst. The report mentions that the judiciary was independent, civic instructions were
strong and local human rights groups operated openly, yet also adds for example that “women
face social and professional discrimination
”
(Freedom House, 1998).
One important factor that helps in keeping the executive accountable towards the public
rights, judicial review helps protect liberties such as freedom of speech and the right to privacy.
Youm (1994, p.3) argues that by fulfilling this role after the new democratic constitution of
1987, the Korean Constitutional Court became a very important safe keeper of human rights.
According to Youm, this newfound protection of human rights improved the freedom of the
press as well (1994, p.3-3).
5 Democratization in South Korea: the strength of Lipset’s explanation
In the previous sections, we have seen that, although the political system of South Korea knew
very little democratic elements under president Park Chung Hee, it fostered rapid economic
development in every area that Lipset identifies. After 1987 we see a democracy emerging, that
offers electoral freedom, yet still had room to grow when it comes to civil rights.
Nevertheless, this only points at a correlation between economic development and the
rise of democracy. As mentioned before, Lipset mentions the strengthening of the lower and
middle classes and the emergence of voluntary organizations as mechanisms that drive
democratization. In this section the question will be answered if these causal mechanisms have
played any role in the democratization process in South Korea.
5.1 Civil Society in South Korea
Civil society has played an important part in the democratization of South Korea. As a concept,
it is closely related the voluntary organizations in Lipset's work. To see how, one must trace
the concept back to Alexis de Tocqueville. According to Woldring (1998, p.363), de
Tocqueville saw civil society as “free associations” that act as intermediaries between the
associations bear great resemblance to the role Lipset ascribes to voluntary organizations. As
mentioned before, this role is to prevent the power of the state from dominating political
decision-making and to recruit citizens to participate in the political process (Lipset, 1959,
p.84-85). Lipset, drawing on Banfield's (1985) analysis of poverty and community
organizations, further states that voluntary organizations will be formed as a result of economic
development:
Since (...) the more well-to-do and the better educated one is, the more likely he is to
belong to voluntary organizations, it seems likely that the propensity to form such
groups is a function of level of income and opportunities for leisure within given
nations. (1959, p.85)
However, Lipset does not fully cover why voluntary organizations play such an
important part in causing democratization. The core of this relationship can be found with
authors such as Almond and Verba (1963). They state that politically oriented civic
associations equip citizens with political knowledge and tools and push them to participate to
achieve their own political goals. Putnam, Leonardi and Nanetti (1993) go even further,
claiming that all civic organizations, even non-political ones, are vital for democratization.
They argue that these organizations promote a shared civic identity and social capital, which
according to Salzman (2011) can described as the dynamic of trust and generic reciprocity. In
Putnam and his colleagues’ famous study of Italian regions, we can find that politics in regions
with few civic organizations was typified by “vertical relations of authority and dependency,
as embodied in patron-client networks” (1993, p.101). They argue that in regions where social capital is fostered and there is a high degree of “civic-ness”, “people believe in popular
Unfortunately, Lipset never mentions which real-world groups classify as voluntary
organizations to him. However, I believe that civil society groups in South Korea fit Lipset's
idea of voluntary organizations, seeing as they serve the same analytical role.
Seong describes the relationship between the state and society in South Korea before and after democratization by stating that the imbalance between an “overdeveloped state and
underdeveloped society came to be largely redressed” (2000, p.88). In a sense, this is true:
under Park and Chun, the South Korean state had a much larger role than the state does in many
western countries, governing the economy through the EPB and keeping society in check
through the KCIA. The latter used harsh means trying to prevent citizens from developing any
channels to express their discontent with the government, causing society to remain
underdeveloped in this sense.
Nonetheless, much of the literature that was consulted for this section reflects the
importance of civil society organizations for the democratization process. According to many
authors, these organizations fought Park Chung Hee and helped end Chun Doo Hwan’s regime
in 1987. As Kim Sunhyuk (2009, p.82) writes, South Korea was not unique for having a
repressive regime, but it was unique for its vibrant and resistant civil society. Kim Sunhyuk
(1996) traces the influence of civil society in South Korea back to 1960. In this year, Rhee
Syngman had just stepped down and a new civilian government was trying to push for
democratic reform. Kim Sunhyuk states that the issues raised at the time by civil society were
mostly abstract, radical and idealistic (1996, p.87). Civil society, which was most prominently embodied by students and the Teachers’ Labor Union, united a diversity of groups in society
pushing for reunification with the North and the punishment of politicians from Rhee’s
oppressive regime. Kim Sunhyuk characterises these civil society groups as being a loose-knit collective, “with little regard to organizational basis and long term strategies” (p.87).
Kim Sunhyuk (1996, pp. 87-88) continues to describe how right-wing organizations violently opposed the “pro-communist” Teachers’ union and student groups. The military, led
by Park Chung Hee, stepped in after clashes between these groups became bigger and more violent. Heo and Roehrig (2010, p.20) agree that “the increasingly chaotic state of South
Korean politics… pushed some in the military over the edge”.
In the period before Park Chung Hee’s developmental regime brought economic
development, civil society could be typified as unorganised, but it was still influential.
Organizations were present on both sides of the political spectrum, and their struggle was so
hard-fought it might have convinced military leaders such as Park that they had to intervene in politics. During Park’s reign however, the character of South Korean civil society began to
change.
Firstly, a new coalition of groups emerged, which stood united against Park’s regime.
According to Adesnik and Kim (2008) and Kim Sunhyuk (1996), labor unions, religious groups and student groups began to work together. “Labor and the church, in close cooperation with
students, emerged as integral elements in South Korean civil society and thus in the democratic
struggle against Park's dictatorship” (Kim Sunhyuk, 1996, p.88). This democratic struggle was fought even harder after Park’s Yushin reforms. In the previous quotation, Kim Sunhyuk
equates the entirety of civil society with the democratic struggle against Park’s dictatorship.
Moreover, afterwards he states that laborers, students and religious activists even allied
themselves with conservative right-wing politicians against the Yushin constitution (1996,
p.88), indicating how almost all of civil society had become united in its struggle against the “overdeveloped” state.
As Adesnik and Kim (2008) state, the conditions for a transition to democracy were
unhappy about the economic recession following the oil crisis. According to Adesnik and Kim,
the U.S. typically favored a stable government in South Korea over one that made concessions
to the opposition (2008, p.1). The same would occur in Vietnam several years later, with the
U.S. for instance supporting Ngo Dinh Diem’s oppressive regime to ensure stability during the
Vietnam war (Chapman, 2013, p.116-117). Still, the U.S. president in 1979, Carter, had not been eager to support Park’s regime, “both because of its human rights violations and its
apparent efforts to bribe American legislators” (Adesnik & Kim, 2000, p.1).
However, the country had to endure almost eight more years of oppressive government
under Chun Doo Hwan after Park was assassinated and the interim civilian government that
followed crumbled. As stated by Adesnik and Kim (2000), the main groups that were active in
civil society protests in 1987 were the same as in 1979: students, religious groups, labour
unions and the remaining politicians of the opposition. One of the reasons Adesnik and Kim
offer explaining why the democratization succeeded in 1987 and not in 1979 is that the various civil society groups fighting for democracy managed to form a “grand coalition” to coordinate
their activities (2000, p.2). Moreover, Kim Sunhyuk (2009, p.83) adds that the middle class
became more engaged in civil society leading up to 1987.
Furthermore, Kim Sunhyuk (2009) typifies the democratic transition that civil society helped shape as a “mass-ascendant” mode of democratization, referring to Karl (1990). Karl
uses the term to differentiate between cases in which incumbent elites themselves instigated
democratic transition, usually retaining some power in the new democratic system, and those in which civil society groups “have gained the upper hand, even temporarily, vis-a-vis those
dominant elites” (p.8). This seems to suggest that the transition towards democracy in South
I argue above that at first, civil society was repressed. Yet, it gradually gained more
influence, because of two reasons: Firstly, new groups such as labor unions joined the struggle for democracy. Secondly, the level of organization became higher, resulting in the “grand
coalition” Adesnik and Kim identified. One could state that this allowed a larger diversity of
groups in society to exert an increasing amount of influence on the government, making South-Korea’s political system at least marginally more pluralistic.
Interestingly, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that small pluralistic elements play a
crucial role in democratization. They state that "institutional drift", or incremental changes
towards or away from pluralism can determine how a given institution reacts to "critical
junctures", major events in history (2012, pp. 108-113). If the institution changes to become
more politically inclusive due to the institutional drift and the critical junctures, it will in turn
foster inclusive economic institutions (p.107) and thus perform better economically.
Institutional drift does not have to be limited to governmental institutions only but can be an
informal process as well. Acemoglu and Robinson for instance describe how British guards in
the then-penal colony Australia gradually allowed convicts to work for themselves, keeping or
selling what they produced, setting them on a path towards pluralistic economic institutions
with property rights (2012, p.277). I believe that the gradual increase in influence of the South
Korean civil society organizations described above should also be seen as institutional drift
towards a more pluralistic political system.
5.2 Class in South Korea
Besides being the vehicle for the bottom-up struggle for democracy in South Korea, voluntary
organizations could also be said to weaken lower class support for radical, anti-democratic
in a variety of “social worlds”, which all have important political consequences (p.365). A
person belonging to different social groups and organizations will experience political reality
through different perspectives. Political influence coming from two or more of these social
worlds can contradict each other, causing cross-pressures. For example, a person’s opinion on
same-sex marriage could be influenced by their religion on the one hand, and their close
personal contact with LGBT+ individuals on the other (Bramlett, 2012).
According to Lipset, lower class individuals’ low socio-economic welfare typically
makes them vulnerable to more radical ideologies (1959, p.83). The cross-pressures these
individuals encounter when influenced by a host of voluntary organizations expose them to
values of other classes, making them less intensely committed to any ideology and less
receptive to radical ideology. Moreover, Lipset claims that increased income security due to
economic development grants lower-class individuals a more gradualist view of politics (p.83).
This seems to have been the case in South Korea. Civil society at first contained
elements that leaned to the extreme left. Yet, as time passed, worker's unions came to fight
alongside students and religious groups as one of the three core civil society groups in South
Korea for what were essentially the same goals: to put an end to the oppression of political
opposition and eventually achieve free and fair elections (Kim Sunhyuk, 1996, pp.86-88).
Yet, on the other hand, it is worth noting that the struggle to overthrow the oppressive
regimes of Park and later of Chun Doo Hwan was a radical struggle in itself. For example,
Seong states the following of the opposition against Chun Doo Hwan in the late
nineteen-eighties: “Student and labor activists sought to overthrow the Chun regime using all available
means, including revolutionary ones. The state and military regime were simply considered as
Another underlying mechanism connected to economic development is the
strengthening of the middle class. This social class, according to Lipset, tends to support
moderate, democratic political parties (1959, p.83). As mentioned before, some authors state
that this middle-class support for moderates is due to the middle class itself being a product of
economic development, which causes the group to identify with modern values (Hattori,
Funatsu & Torii, 2003). Others believe that the middle class might simply be trying to protect
their economic status by fighting for property rights (Glassman, 1995).
To uncover whether the middle class played such an active role in South Korea, it is
important to first define what the term "middle class" entailed in nineteen-seventies Korea.
Yang (2012) offers a useful distinction between several classes, indicating that in Korea middle
class is often seen as synonymous with white-collar professions, such as managers, teachers
and engineers. Yang adds that what sets the middle class analytically apart is that their income
is reliant on scarce occupational skills, instead of relying on property like the bourgeoisie, or
on simple manual skills like the working class (2012, p.428). The South Korean middle class
grew enormously due to the economic development under Park Chung Hee's regime. For
example, as Amsden (1989, p.171) shows, economic development brought a large increase in
the amount of managerial positions and the growth of heavy industry increased the number of
engineers by ten.
The literature on the role of South Korea's middle class in the struggle for democracy
seems divided. On the one hand, Yang agrees that the middle class grew strongly under Park.
However, she poses that this growth was not a spontaneous, organic process. Instead, she
speaks of a "state sponsored middle class formation" (2012, p.425), arguing that Park
intentionally nurtured the urban middle class to create a section of society that would be
supportive and obedient. She refers to Gorski (2003), who wrote that fostering obedience in
Yang concludes that the appeal of the middle class “dream” of wealth and comfort that
Park's economic policy brought, a narrative that was promoted by cultural practices and
state-led media, made Koreans "overlook the increasing social inequality" (p.440) under Park's
regime. Yet there are also scholars who state that, even though it is never mentioned as a core
group of the civil society protest movement, the middle class did in fact gradually join the
protests against Park. Kim Sunhyuk (2009, p.82) for example states that groups of intellectuals,
journalists and professionals joined students, religious groups in their protests against Park
after the Yushin reforms.
Kim Sunhyuk goes on to state that one of the reasons that the middle class eventually
joined the protests was that "the middle class was no longer satisfied with only economic
prosperity – they wanted political freedom" (1996, p.91). He continues to add that the "classical
Lipsetian thesis seems to hold true in the case of South Korea" (p.93), stating that postponed
political rights made the middle class become increasingly impatient with the regime.
6 Conclusions and discussion
As mentioned in the introduction, the central aim of this thesis was to find out whether Lipset’s
theory could explain the establishment of democracy in South Korea. To begin with, it was
shown that South Korea, when it was a developmental state under Park Chung Hee, knew very
little democratic elements. At the same time, unprecedented economic development took place
on all areas Lipset identifies. GDP, industrialization, education and urbanization all show rapid
growth. After the country had experienced its first democratic presidential elections, we see a
democracy emerging, showing high electoral freedom and an improving civil rights situation.
The clear difference between Park Chung Hee's Korea and the country after 1987 shows that
Still, while electoral freedom improved almost immediately after the 1987 elections,
the development of individual rights fell behind in various areas. Whilst I argue that the South
Korean post-transition democracy is not an illiberal democracy, due to the improvement of
individual rights in other areas, a possible explanation might be that economic development
might be more conducive to the development of electoral liberties than individual rights. This
could be an interesting starting point for future research.
This study further shows that of the three causal mechanisms that Lipset argues drive
the relationship between economic development and democratization, two played an important
role in the South Korean democratization process. To begin with, civil society groups seem to
have played a crucial role in leading the popular struggle for democratization. As I argue that
civil society in South Korea can be seen as synonymous with Lipset's view of voluntary
organizations, the role it played in the democratization process seems to speak for Lipset’s
theory. Furthermore, one might argue that South Korea's lower class shows signs of being
cross-pressured; accepting and fighting for values it came to share with students, religious
groups and the middle class. Nevertheless, the role of the middle class remains subject to
academic debate.
Moreover, it was shown that, even though Acemoglu and Robinson argue that growth
under extractive regimes inevitably falters, the South Korean economy made use of innovative
technologies during the nineteen-sixties and -seventies under Park’s regime. Lipset’s theory is
much more optimistic about growth under such a regime. Yet, the question also arose if Lipset’s
work might be unified with that of Acemoglu and Robinson. Acemoglu and Robinson argue
that political and economic institutions can evolve to become more pluralistic through
institutional drift, interspersed with critical junctures. The example of Australian convicts
illustrates how institutional drift is not limited to formal governmental institutions. Civil
Korea. When at first, they were divided, idealistic and unorganized, in the years leading up to
1987 these organizations joined in a grand coalition, resulting in increased influence,
eventually leading to democratization. I suggest that this informal increase of plurality in South
Korea’s political system might be seen as institutional drift. Future studies might research the degree in which this gradual increase of voluntary organizations’ influence can truly be equated
to institutional drift in the way Acemoglu and Robinson defined it and if perhaps the 1987
Bibliography
Acemoglu, D. & Robinson, J.A. (2012). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books.
Adesnik, D.A. & Kim, S. (2008). If At First You Don’t Succeed: The Puzzle of South Korea’s Democratic Transition (Working Paper Number 83). Retrieved from:
https://cddrl.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/No_83_AdesKimSouthKorea.pdf Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five
nations. Princeton: Princeton University Center for International Studies.
Amsden, A. (1989). Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banfield, E. (1958). The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. Glencoe: The Free Press.
Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. Bramlett, B.H. (2012). The Cross‐Pressures of Religion and Contact with Gays and Lesbians,
and Their Impact on Same‐Sex Marriage Opinion. Politics & Polity, 40(1), 13-42. Chapman, J.M. (2013) Cauldron of Resistance: Ngo Dinh Diem, the United States, and
1950’s Southern Vietnam. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Chau, L. (2001). South Korea: Government-Led Development and the Dominance of the Giant Corporations. In K. Kwong (Ed.), Industrial Development in Singapore, Taiwan & South Korea (pp. 118-200). New Jersey: World Scientific.
Chen, J. (2013). A Middle Class Without Democracy: Economic Growth and the Prospects for Democratization in China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cho, K. (1997). Tension Between the National Security Law and Constitutionalism in South Korea: Security For What? Boston University International Law Journal, 15(1), 125-178.
Chung, P. (2014). The “Pictures in Our Heads”: Journalists, Human Rights, and U.S.–South Korean Relations, 1970–1976. Diplomatic History, 38(5), 1136–1155.
Cox, A. (1987). Court and the Constitution. Boston: Houghton.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Diamond, L., & Kim, B. (2000). Consolidating Democracy in South Korea. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Diamond, L. & Morlino, L. (2004). The Quality of Democracy: An Overview. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 21-31.
Domínguez, J.I. (2011). The Perfect Dictatorship? South Korea versus Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. In P. Kim & E.F. Vogel (Eds.), The Park Chung Hee Era (pp. 542-572). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
Eugene Kim, C.I. (1978) Emergency, Development, and Human Rights: South Korea. Asian Survey, 18(4), 363-378.
Evans, P. (1995). Embedded Autonomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Epstein, D., Bates, R., Goldstone, J., Kristensen, I. & O'Halloran, S. (2006). Democratic Transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 551-569.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Freedom House. (2017). Freedom in the World 2017: Populists and Autocrats: The Dual
Threat to Global Democracy. Retrieved from:
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/South Korea
Glassman, R.M. (1995). The Middle Class and Democracy in Socio-historical Perspective. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Gorski, S. (2003). The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hattori, T., Funatsu, T. & Torii, T. (2003). Introduction: The Emergence of the Asian Middle Classes and Their Characteristics. Developing Economies, 41(2), 129-139.
Heo, U., & Roehrig, T. (2010). South Korea since 1980 (The World Since 1980). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huckfeldt, R., Plutzer, E., & Sprague, J. (1993). Alternative Contexts of Political Behavior: Churches, Neighborhoods, and Individuals. The Journal of Politics, 55(2), 365-381 Hutchcroft, P.D. (2011). Reflections on a Reverse Image: South Korea under Park Chung
Hee and the Phillipines under Ferdinand Marcos. In P. Kim & E.F. Vogel (Eds.) The Park Chung Hee Era (pp. 573-602). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Im, H.B. (2011). The Origins of the Yushin Regime: Machiavelli Unveiled. In P. Kim & E.F.
Vogel (Eds.), The Park Chung Hee Era (pp. 233-262). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Jun, S. (1991). State-making in South Korea, 1945-1948: U.S. Occupation and Korean Development. (PhD thesis Brown University). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.
Jun, S. (1992). The Origins of the Developmental State in South Korea. Asian Perspective, 16(2), 181-204.
Kang, M. (1998). Understanding Urban Problems in Korea: Continuity and Change. Development and Society, 27(1), 99-120.
Karl, T.L. (1990). Dilemmas of Democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 23(1), 1-21.
Kim, B. (2011). The Labyrinth of Solitude: Park and the Exercise of Presidential Power. In B. Kim & E.F. Vogel (Eds.), The Park Chung Hee Era (pp. 140-167). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea's Technological Learning. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kim, S. (1996). Civil Society in South Korea: From Grand Democracy Movements to Petty Interest Groups? Journal of Northeast Asian Studies 15 (81), 81-97.
Kim, S. (1997). State and Civil Society in South Korea's Democratic Consolidation: Is the Battle Really over? Asian Survey, 37(12), 1135-1144.
Kim, S. (2009). Civil Society in Democratizing Korea. In S.S. Kim (Ed.), Korea’s Democratization (pp. 81-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Korea Legislation Research Institute. (n.d.). National Security Act (English). Retrieved 19-5-2018 from: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=26692&lang=ENG Leftwich, A. (2000). States of Development: On the Primacy of Politics in Development.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lederer, E. (1940). The State of the Masses: The Threat of the Classless Society. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Lipset, S.M. (1959). Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. The American Political Science Review, 53(1), 69-105.
Lipset, S.M. (1960). Political Man. The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City: Doubleday. Mahony, A. & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social
Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morse, J.M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K. & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22.
Pirie, I. (2016). South Korea after the Developmental State. In: Y.Chu (Ed.), The Asian Developmental State (pp.139-158). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pirie, I. (2008). The Korean Developmental State: From Dirigisme to Neo-liberalism. London: Routledge.
Przeworski, A. & Limongi, F. (1997). Modernization: Theories and Facts. World Politics, 49(2), 155-183.
Przeworski, A, Alvarez, M., Cheibub, J. & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R. & Nanetti, R.Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Robinson, M.E. (2007). Korea's Twentieth-Century Odyssey : A Short History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Salzman, R. (2011). Civil Society. In J. Ishiyama and M. Breuning (Eds.), 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook (pp. 273-283). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Sanders, E. (2009). Historical Institutionalism. In S. Binder, R. Rhodes & B. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Selznick, P. (1952). The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seong, K. (2000). Civil Society and Democratic Consolidation in South Korea: Great Achievements and Remaining Problems. In L. Diamond and B. Kim (Eds.) Consolidating Democracy in South Korea (pp. 87-109). Boulder: Lynne Rienner. The World Bank. (2017). GDP growth (annual %). Retrieved from:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=1987&locations =KR&start=1961&view=chart
United Nations Economic and Social Affairs. (2016). The World’s Cities in 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/th e_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). International Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour, 1960-2011. Retrieved from:
https://www.bls.gov/ilc/intl_gdp_capita_gdp_hour.pdf
White, G. & Wade, R. (1988) Developmental States and Markets in East Asia: An Introduction. In G. White (Ed.), Developmental States in East Asia (pp. 1-29). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Woldring, H. (1998). State and Civil Society in the Political Philosophy of Alexis de Tocqueville. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(4), 363-373.
Woo, J. (1991). Race to the Swift: State and Finance in Korean Industrialization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wucherpfenning, J. & Deutsch, F. (2009). Modernization and Democracy: Theories and Evidence Revisited. Living Reviews in Democracy, 1(1), 1-9.
Yang, M. (2012). The Making of the Urban Middle Class in South Korea (1961-1979): Nation-Building, Discipline and the Birth of the Ideal National Subjects. Sociological Inquiry, 82(3), 424-445.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Youm, K. (1991). Press Freedom and Judiciary Review in South Korea. Stanford Journal of International Law 30(1), 1-40.
